More a protest than a clash?
In response to your blogstress's musings on the great Clash of Civilizations published at The American Prospect Online on the 5th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, the mail is rolling in.
From the land of Tom DeLay (she notes with some irony), your cybertrix received this well-reasoned missive from a reader less cynical than she:
Dear Ms. Stan:
[Your blogstress loves it when they call her "Ms."]
I read your article at The American Prospect Online with interest, however, I do feel that we need to combat what I see as a fundamental misperception which is common in America and is actively promoted by the President and his minions.
In your fourth paragraph, your friend states “They hate our way of life…”
In the next paragraph you partially agree with her conclusion.
That is where I would disagree. If you want to know why we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, I think it would be wise to ask the people doing the attacking; after all, who knows their reasons better than themselves? For a one-page summary of their reasons, I would suggest there is no better source than the fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden on February 23, 1998.
I believe that as long as we believe that our enemies “hate our freedom” or “hate our way of life” there is no possibility of negotiating with them. After all, how can we negotiate away our “freedom” or our “way of life”?
Furthermore, we constantly refer to our enemies as “madmen” or “fanatics”. Once again, it immediately follows that you cannot deal rationally (negotiate) with madmen.
I believe that those who want this conflict [to perpetuate] want to frame it in such a way as to preclude the possibility of negotiation, and that their rhetoric is designed with that end in mind.
Mark Steele
Sugarland, Texas
Comments